One Psychologist's Two Cents on Guns

Political arguments usually ignore the complexity of the issues surrounding guns

The latest massacre in Las Vegas once again forces us to confront the fact that we have a problem in America. In fact, in an average year, four times as many Americans are killed by guns than the number of coalition soldiers that have died in all of the years of war in Afghanistan.

It seems as if each new month brings yet another story about a high-profile shooting, prompting the predictable impassioned debates between gun-control advocates and gun-rights defenders.

I would like to weigh in on this conversation.

Over the past dozen years or so, I have been doing research on aggression, and some of this research has found its way into popular media outlets ranging from so called “liberal rags” like the New York Timesand CNN to conservative columns written by people like Jonah Goldberg. Much of this coverage is sparked by the fact that my work is relevant to the very touchy subject of the role played by guns in American life.

Apparently, people see what they wish to see in media portrayals of what I have to say about guns.

Individuals who have never actually read any of my papers confidently denounce my research as “junk science,” and I have been the target of criticism (and some not-so-thinly-veiled threats of violence) from both the extreme right and left wings of the political spectrum by people who think that they know what my opinions about guns are. I have even seen allegations that my research has been funded by the anti-gun lobby in pursuit of its political goals, which, if true, means that someone owes me a lot of money.

I am writing this essay to make my opinions about gun issues clear and public. Many will disagree with what I have to say, which is OK with me as long as they understand what I am in fact saying.

Let me start by saying that I do not hate guns.

I am not a hunter, but I enjoyed any kind of target shooting when I was a kid and I took a marksmanship course as an adult, although I do not own a gun. In fact, I am one of the first to admit that shooting a gun is a lot of fun. I have been interviewed by publications such as Men’s Health Magazine and The Guardian about why men in particular get such a “bang” out of shooting guns, and I understand the biology behind this. In 2006, I published an article in Psychological Science with one of my students and one of my colleagues in which we demonstrated that men do in fact get a testosterone rush just from handling a gun and that this can be easily translated into an impulse toward aggressive behavior.

In other words, just handling a gun makes men feel more powerful and aggressive.

Do I believe that owning a gun will sometimes protect good people from bad people? Yes, of course. There will be times when the “bad guy” gets what is coming to him because a homeowner has a gun. However, data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) indicate that this is offset by the fact that gun owners are 2.7 times more likely to be murdered (usually by someone they know) than people who do not own guns and that they are FIVE TIMES more likely to commit suicide than non gun-owners.

I would also like to chime in on the question of "background checks." In most states, there is more of a hassle for acquiring a dog or a driver's license than there is for acquiring a gun. I assume that most gun owners do not want terrorists, people with a history of mental illness, or those convicted of violent crimes to have easy access to high powered weaponry. And yet, many of these same individuals would vote against measures that would accomplish the goal of making it more difficult for such people to buy a gun.

My own research indicates that such gun issues are primarily a male problem.

So, guns don’t kill people, people kill people; but people with guns kill a lot more people than people without guns.

Source: Luis Molinero/Shutterstock

From everything I have said so far, you may conclude that I am in favor of taking everyone’s guns away and banning handguns, but you are wrong.

I am a pragmatist, and banning guns in America would work out about as well as the prohibition of alcohol in America did in the 1930s. There are simply too many guns in our country and too many people with strong emotional attachments to them to get rid of them.

I believe that individuals are entitled to own handguns for protection and/or for recreational shooting, and people are also entitled to own rifles and shotguns for hunting. There are undeniable risks associated with this position, but given our political and cultural climate, it seems reasonable to me.

However, the gun-rights crowd loses credibility when they resist controls on almost any kind of weaponry. We do not allow people to keep nuclear devices in their basement, nor do we allow them to drive tanks around in the street, and for very good reason.

The only reason a person should want to own a weapon designed for the explicit purpose of killing a large number of people in a short time appears to be that they are planning at some point to kill a large number of people in a short time, and I would prefer that this not be possible. I understand that many people think that it is perfectly acceptable, desirable even, for private citizens to have access to firepower that outguns what is available to local law enforcement. I disagree with this position.

I realize that my essay is unlikely to change anyone’s mind about gun control issues, but I felt the need to contribute my two cents.

I partly agree and partly disagree with your arguments but it is nice to see someone in mostly leftist PT calmly assert their side when it comes to guns.

One aspect of your argument I have trouble agreeing with is that the murder rates of guns are really that much higher in the US. The stats are tremendously skewed by the Hyper-Violent Democrat-ruled cities such as Chicago, Detroit, etc. Stefan Molyneux does a great job taking those areas out of the statistics and shows the US compares favorably with other safe countries in Europe and other places:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg

I do agree that there must be a limit to what is allowed for civilians to own, but I also think civilians should have access to larger and more deadly weapons than handguns. No one in the US wants to believe that some massive government takeover can occur like it has, well, almost everywhere else at some point in history. What would have happened differently if the Jews in WWII had AR-15s? Still bloody, but at least they would not have been herded to slaughter like sheep. The best thing about a gun so often is just the threat of it stops violence, and whether you are a small time criminal or dictator you will think twice if you know you will face an armed victim. I think the quantity of heavy-duty arms also helps deter foreign invasions. If Russia or China attacks us they will have to deal with millions of armed US citizens fighting to the death. Is that really worth it to them?

I purchased an AR-15 at Cabela's the other day. I walked out of the store with the AR-15 and a cart full of ammo. Hundreds of others were in the gun dept too, buying guns, ammo and accessories. This happens many hundreds of times around the US every day with nary a single gun murder. Yet in the urban core of Chicago sometimes 10 people are killed in a day. Maybe the Left doesn't want to take the blame it deserves in causing so much of the pain in these peoples lives that they feel their only option is to kill each other. Guns aren't the problem.

I don't think that if Jewish people had AR15s, that would have saved them. Not for long, anyway. As bad as things went, at least the Nazis were sparing some Jewish people for a while. If they could expect armed resistance, the Nazis wouldn't have bothered deporting Jewish people, picking and choosing their victims. They would have simply deployed superior military power and killed everybody on the spot precisely because doing otherwise would have exposed them to the risk of getting shot.

If a rapist comes after you do you just lay back and spread your legs and give up? Yes, the Nazis would have gone after them with weapons and they would have had to fight back with many of them losing their lives. Good thing they didn't fight back or some of them could have DIED!

I was about to comment to Dr McAndrew on the misleads posed by Single-Parameter Statistics when your comment caught my eye --

"The stats are tremendously skewed by the Hyper-Violent Democrat-ruled cities such as Chicago, Detroit, etc ".

This comment or its effect is used endlessly -- I should say, MIS-used. . It leaves out a decisive part of the overall issue -- conveniently for those of the GoP persuasion.

It tries to lay the blame upon Dem-City-Politics (ONE parameter) -- When in fact, the unrest and violence in those cities is more likely caused by the lack of employment opportunities in those cities caused by nothing more nor less than GoP-Politics / Pt-ONE-%-Politics : Namely, The outsourcing of jobs overseas -- The SECOND parameter.

1. Liberals breaking up African American families since the 1960's and encouraging welfare dependence has created multiple generations of Blacks and Whites that have no hope and solely depend on stolen loot from the Democrats in exchange for the votes. Best way for them to make money? Drugs which brings violent culture with it. But of course OUTLAWING GUNS will solve the gun issue just like outlawing drugs solved that problem. And Liberals say the Right is racist!

2. Liberal Education. More money spent per child than EVER before and complete Liberal control of the education system in those cities yet the students in these cities aren't prepared for even simple jobs in the American economy.

3. Jobs going overseas because of excessive regulations and taxes caused by LIBERALS. Both Liberal and Conservative leaders have shipped jobs overseas because if you can't make any money would you rather do that or just shut down. Don't give me the 1% = Republicans. You know as well as I the huge percentage of Leftists CEOs in this country and around the world. I would wager it is far more than 1/2 nowadays because the Democrats love their Crony Capitalism. Hell, Obama complained last year about the sorry state of the US infrastructure - what the HELL happened to the trillions in stolen dollars he spent on shovel-ready jobs at the start of his term???? Most of the infrastructure issues would be fixed if that money hadn't enriched his cronies. Maybe if Democrats like Obama and the Clintons weren't so busying stealing fortunes some of that money could go to the inner cities to fix the problems?

If the "Republican Outsourcing" causes violence in these cities why doesn't it happen in ALL cities then - the Liberal Regulations and taxes have hurt he whole country and not just Democrat cities.

All of the negative factors have gotten worse over Obama's 8 years and the Left still wonders why Trump won?!?!?! Like I have always said, Liberals are either stupid or evil, there is no other choice.

You say that the "only" reason someone would want to own a gun supposedly designed for killing lots of people in a short period of time (i.e. the standard anti-gun phrase describing an AR-15) is that they are planning on killing a lot of people. This statement it totally irrational. Millions (several, in fact) of AR-15s have been sold in the U.S. Do you really think that those millions of buyers had NO logical reason for wanting to own that gun, or are millions of Americans planning mass shootings. While you may not see the reason for owning one, it doesn't not mean one does not exist.

The other huge flaw in your logic is that you are applying general statistics to all people, regardless of individual factors. For the reasons that PRM provided, the murder rate argument is flawed. I, an upper-class professional living in a gated condominium, have absolutely no increased risk of murder by owning a gun. That statistic is driven by young, urban, poor, males. They are much more likely to be murdered than the general population, and they often own guns, and often illegally. This is the same problem with the often cited statistic claiming a gun is more likely to kill a family member than a criminal--a meaningless statistic if you fail to account for personal factors (history of mental illness?, anger issues?, substance abuse?, safe storage?) that greatly affect the results. Consequently, you cannot simply say a gun makes your home more dangerous with only the general statistic. The odds of a gun killing a family member for someone like me (no kids, storage in a gun safe, extensive training, years of experience, no mental health issues, graduate degree) vs an alcoholic with anger issues, unsupervised children and unlocked guns are miles apart.

Damn straight! Just because I like to have fun with dynamite doesn't mean I intend to harm people with it. How come I can't buy nerve gas and Ebola? Stop trying to spoil my fun!
No animals were harmed during the writing of this post.

Take the US population of 375million people. How many nut jobs are in sample size? Forget looking at percentages, which are probably 1-2% because that would mean MORE guns sales after regular folks would see there are 3,000,000 to 6,000,000 legit crazy people walking around and the local mall sudden 'looks' A LOT different.

How about just a 'number', like 5 per million nut jobs? That means there are a couple of thousand people who ARE THINKING about killing a LOT OF PEOPLE...TODAY.

Where are these 5,000 people? The mall? The Theater? A street fest in some 'normal' American neighborhood?

Answer: YES.

While you and I are fixin our morning coffee, these 5,000, are thinking about killing a lot of people as THEY stir in their three packets of sugar. They are. Right this minute. Who are these folks? The boston bomber. The Arvada theater shooter. The list is pretty long.

Here is what we can all agree with, with 100% certainty...

If that Arvada shooter had walked into that Exit door with his weapons and body armor and face mask at midnight, had there been 25 guns with law abiding citizens waiting for The Dark Night to start...he would have been dead within 10 seconds of the time he raised his rifle and fired the first shot. Guaranteed.

Guaranteed.

So, where are those 5,000 nuts whose current mental state is all about killing people? I don't know. But it's certain they are not thinking about how short their fuse will be because where ever they choose to carry out their insanity, folks will be just as prepared as they are...

Clip sizes? Round sizes? etc...

Those are not, never have been the issue.

It's HUMANS who are the issue. And THAT PROBLEM, will never be solved by any law.

While the author adequately explains the issue from several
views and the political/emotional aspects; no real solution is
seen.
Its a given that there are too many guns now to ever be
controlled. So we are left with who uses the guns and how.
Making guns the 'forbiden fruit' for the wackadoodles, drug
addict or just eveil people will just drives more guns
underground. Lets just focus on the 'mis-users'. If you use a
gun to commit a crime, you must pay dearly. If you kill
someone non-accidental, non-self-defense; you must pay
even more. Making the 'whole class' suffer because of some
'wiseacres' is like being back in 3rd grade. We've got to do
better.

on Wednesday and early Thursday of this past week 12 (12!!!) people were killed with guns, in separate incidents.

If only they had the strictest gun laws in the country and if murder were illegal everything would be okay, right? Oh, wait ...

It isn't a gun problem. It is a cultural problem.

When I was growing up everyone had guns in my suburban neighborhood. My dad, my uncles, my brother, the fathers of my friends. Hundreds of guns were around. Guns were ubiquitous. Oddly however, no one was shooting anyone else with them. Guns have always been in plenty in America.

Hooray for the ongoing policies of the 60's and their wonderful impact on the inner cities!

Limiting drug use to only certain ones has does wonders for lowering illegal drug use, right? Wrong. Heroine use is on the rise in many places.

I'm not very confident that trying to limit the mass public to bolt action rifles and six shooters is going to solve the problem.

Great essay, Frank. You might like to know that history backs you up as well.
Since most all of the arguments about guns involve the 2nd Amendment, we need to appreciate that piece of the Bill of Rights in it full context --particularly the clause related to "a well ordered militia." We've had well-ordered militias (aka police departments, National Guard, military branches, Coast Guard, State Troopers, etc.) for 200 years. Consequently, a basic condition of the 2nd Amendment is well-covered. The only kinds of firearms that people might need would be for close range self-defense and hunting. If folks want to play with big guns, they can keep them in a locker at a licensed shooting range. Otherwise, no one needs the kind of gun that keeps police officers on edge. Open-carry is also out, since doing so meets the criteria of a "disordered militia."
*additional caveat. I do not discount that our "well-ordered militias" have a history of dangerous biases, or that the 2nd Amendment only applied to citizens (i.e., 18th century white males with property). Yet like conceptions of citizenship, police departments and military branches are reformable--which makes them far better than "lone wolves" and the growing number of "disordered militias" who parade as patriots.

The reason to make it much more difficult to obtain an AR-15 is similar to our reason to make it difficult to obtain dynamite.
Yet let us consider making an exception for those living in rural areas away from police protection. In addition to being able to purchase a "normal" weapon, they may have a legitimate self-defense need for what is in effect a machine gun. But in order to purchase one, let them go through the same kind of rigorous and thorough background check that we put prospective police officers through.
By the way, the fact that people use guns to commit suicide with is no reason to make guns unobtainable. Not unless you want to make it legal to obtain a lethal dose of fentanyl. People have a fundamental moral right to kill themselves. Try to take away that right, and what you now have is a pissed off person who is willing to die.